activemq-users mailing list archives

After further investigation, it turns out there was a configuration issue,
which could have been avoided with clearer documentation. (it might have
helped if i had included my configuration as well!) We had set the value
for broker name differently in our two running instances of ActiveMQ. Doing
this caused the ActiveMQs to act as though they were load balancing instead
of acting as Master and slave (which was our intent).
Suggested documentation changes:In the schema reference for brokerName,
change the description from: Sets the name of this broker; which must be
unique in the network
to:
Sets the name of this broker; which must be unique in the network, except
for master-slave configurations, where it must be the same
Also, in the master slave shared file system documentation, include a note
stating that the WebConsole will not load for the slave until it becomes the
master if the setup is done correctly. Also mention that the value for
brokerName must be the same for the master and all slaves.
We are not sure why we would sometimes have 3 consumers in one queue in one
instance of AMQ and one in the same queue of the other instance of AMQ
(there should have been 2 in each). With the correct master-slave setup
now, we no longer have a problem.
Mike M
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Consumers-not-always-being-released-tp15818936s2354p15963463.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.